Our former editor Robert Bartley once quipped (fondly) about the
writer Jude Wanniski that he thought a capital-gains tax cut could
intercept a Soviet SS-20 missile in mid-flight. We were reminded of that
monomania Tuesday as the political left more or less declared in unison
that the ravages of Hurricane Sandy prove that America needs bigger
government.

We know liberals are worried that
President Obama might lose next week, but are they so panicky that they
want to suggest even before the storm has passed that Mitt Romney and
Republicans are against disaster relief? Apparently so. It's an
especially low-rent tactic, akin to blaming the tea party for Jared Lee
Loughner's shooting of Gabby Giffords. But it's equally absurd to argue
that a once-in-a-century storm means you can't block-grant Medicaid. ...

The rush to use Hurricane Sandy to justify a bigger federal government
makes us wonder if there's an excuse liberals won't use to grow
Leviathan? The reality of the federal fisc is that whoever wins next
Tuesday is going to have to choose between functions best done by the
federal government and those that can be done better by others. A
government that can't distinguish between a big storm and Big Bird is
simply too big.

TrackBack URL for this entry:$MTTrans>

Comments

Of course Romney is not for cutting FEMA funding. Or Medicare spending. or Social Security spending. and will increase military spending by $2 trillion.

No, Romney is only for reducing the deficit after cutting tax rates by $5 trillion. he will offset it by ... something. But if you actually try to pin him down to anything specific, well, it is certainly not that.

Well, Mitt, with all the things you have backtracked on and excluded from cuts, there is nothing left.